Time: Sat Sep 06 16:12:28 1997 Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 16:11:23 -0700 To: Karl Kleinpaste <karl@jprc.com> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar] Subject: Many Major Points to Consider!! Cc: [address in toolbar] Karl, Some thoughts off the top of my head: 1. You never did rebut the Motion to Dismiss, did you? 2. Sensenich is a Magistrate; we have a comprehensive brief which carefully evaluates the legal history of the magistrate statutes; she technically cannot preside on this case anyway. 3. The ORDER of September 5, 1997, assumes facts not in evidence, namely, that Smolar is an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and that Clarke is an Esquire, employed by DOJ, etc. 4. You have until October 4, 1997, to file a brief in response to the Defendants' motion to dismiss: notice "Defendants'", meaning that the court considers all defendants to have filed the motion to dismiss. 5. Thus, you might petition this court for a declaratory judgment, ruling as a matter of law what actually does constitute the "defendants' motion to dismiss". Your prior pleadings make a careful and justifiable case for proving that the "motion to dismiss" [sic] was not filed by IRS or Chafin, right? There is your pressure point. 6. Take advantage of the judge's ORDER, by "flowing with it." In other words, the ORDER exhibits certain presumptions, and errors. You can request clarification, as part of your motion for declaratory judgment on what constitutes the "motion to dismiss". Are you with me on this point? 7. The October 4, 1997, deadline comes quite some time AFTER your final FOIA appeal deadline, does it not? This will give you plenty of time to contemplate a COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, naming the following defendants: United States Internal Revenue Service Gavin Chafin Donald J. Lee Ila Jeanne Sensenich Jessica Lieber Smolar In anticipation of such a move, I would prepare with FOIA requests to Lee and Sensenich, using Gilbertson's points to justify such a request, namely, the blanket FOIA exemption for the entire judicial branch is overly broad, with the Oath of Office provision is a constitutional provision. 8. Once such a FOIA suit is filed, you can force recusal of Lee and Sensenich, via 28 U.S.C. 455. This is exactly what Gilbetson did, and U.S. Attorney went out of his way to inform that judge that a law suit had been filed against him. His name was "Rosenbaum"; see Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF and also his COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. You will need to pay another docket fee, in order to docket and prosecute this FOIA suit. 9. If necessary, you can also request an extension of time on the October 4, 1997, deadline, but you then run the risk of having such a request denied. 10. The motion to dismiss can be arbitrated, by suggesting that your suit against the United States should be dismissed, but your suit against the other two named defendants should proceed, because they have not really appeared. Also, you can arbitrate dismissal with prejudice versus dimissal without prejudice, and yield on a remedy "in the alternative," namely, do not oppose "dismissal without prejudice" of the case against Defendant United States. 11. Don't forget: you can also play some hard ball by arguing that the Magistrate is biased by reason of the fact that she is paying taxes on her judicial compensation. This is particularly offensive in your case, because the IRS is a named defendant, and that means that she already has a contract with a real party of interest. This is another EXCELLENT ground for recusing her, and every other federal judge who comes along. 12. The way you deal with #11 above is either to demand immediate recusal, or to give her the chance to rescind her W-4 within a specific deadline, just as Mike Kemp did in his federal case. I believe I already sent you Kemp's demand to rescind W-4, didn't I? Your authority is Lord v. Kelley. You need to read this case. See Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF in the Supreme Law Library ("SLL") for the correct citation, at URL: http://supremelaw.com 13. You still have a procedural window open on the possibility that this judge will deny the motion to dismiss. But, you have not yet cured the defects in your original complaint, specifically, you have failed to identify, in so many words, the statute which grants original jurisdiction over your case to the USDC, and you failed to specify any actual damages. 14. In light of #13 above, you should consider an affidavit of probable cause, testifying to the existence of fraud in the pertinent statutes which grant original jurisdiction to the USDC v. the DCUS. You can attach "Karma and the Federal Courts" as an exhibit. You can also cite the document on which you relied for advice about which court to invoke; you told me, in so many words, that you followed that government form, when you filed in the USDC, didn't you? There you have it: their "form" is one of several sources of the fraud which they have committed against you. So, things are not looking all that bad, actually. Think about these point, and get back to me. You must be prepared to dig in right now, and be willing to respond with a blockbuster "response to the defendants' motion to dismiss." To force that point, I would consider a rather prompt and short Motion for Declaratory Judgment, forcing this judge to identify which document it considers to be the "defendants' motion to dismiss," and to issue a ruling on whether, or not, it truly IS a motion to dismiss by all named defendants (plural) or not. If she rules that it IS a motion to dismiss by all named defendants, you can fight that ruling, because it assumes facts not in evidence. These "little" motions need to go in right away, and I think you now realize why. Enough for now. Chew on these points for a while, even if you need the rest of the weekend to do so. I would like you to get these "quick" motions in the mail tomorrow, if you can. Tell the judge you cannot respond to the document which she calls "defendants' motion to dismiss" if Defendant IRS and Defendant Chafin have file NO SUCH MOTION. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://supremelaw.com copy: echo back At 04:27 PM 9/6/97 -0400, you wrote: >First, bookmark the lawsuit index: >http://pocari-sweat.jprc.com/~karl/govt/lawsuit/ >Hit it. Go to the bottom. Click on the last 2 entries, recv'd today. > >I'm annoyed. Really seriously annoyed. I swear, she doesn't actually >read anything. I'm wrong because I'm wrong and all the case >citations, proof in the law, and everything else just doesn't matter. >I'm wrong, so I'm wrong, so I lose. Might makes right, and the judge >has the might at this point. > >Punt her out with demand for recusal? > >Damnation, I'm irritated. It doesn't help that I did probably $1K >worth of damage to my van today, hitting and killing a doe on a >backwoods highway. Just yet another screwup to deal with. > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine : tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in toolbar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this _____________________________________: As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail